If we had as many browsers as OSs - somewhat interoperable but genuinely independent - then I would feel much better about the web. Compare NT/Darwin/*+Linux/(Net|Free|Open|Dragonfly)BSD/illumos (to say nothing of the long tail; you can in fact use Haiku for a lot) against Gecko/Blink/WebKit.
If you consider the BSDs and Illumos to be operating systems, you might as well consider Lynx/Ladybird/Servo/Netsurf/Trident as browsers.
For 97% of the world, there are four operating systems: Android, Windows, iOS, and macOS. There are three browsers: Chrome, Safari, and Edge. The rest is an irrelevant sidenote that only hobbyists and developers care about, existing at the grace of the megacorporations that sponsor them.
I have daily driven OpenBSD and FreeBSD, and I have tried to use anything that isn't Gecko or Blink. I feel comfortable saying that the OS situation is much better than the browser situation. I'm interested in technical merit / feature completeness, not popularity. The situation is likely to improve with Ladybird and maybe Servo, granted.
Agreed, and I would argue that it's even worse on the browser side. We have Chrome and Safari on iOS, the rest is essentially irrelevant. With regards to web standards, Edge is just another Chrome-reskin. When Apple sooner or later looses the WebKit monopoly on iOS, it will all be Chrome...
and there's plenty of somewhat usable browsers out there too.
But the OP's implication is that there ought to be a fully working browser (that satisfies the standards of the day), but creatable from someone in their garage.
That hasn't been true for cars, appliances or any modern equipment for ages. And the same phenomenon being applicable to software isn't really that unimaginable (nor a problem).
> That hasn't been true for cars, appliances or any modern equipment for ages.
Personally, I don't see that as progress. I don't need touch screens and surveillance everywhere in every major purchase I make. I fail to see what we have gotten in exchange for all the increased complexity.